r/law • u/bendubberley_ • 15h ago

Legal News The judge in the Lindsay Clancy case is admonishing jurors who are refusing to follow his instructions

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

10.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.7k

u/secondsbest 14h ago

Not guilty by reason of insanity most likely based on this. One juror is holding out on a guilty verdict or the judge wouldn't be harping on how the state has to go so far to win that charge.

730

u/KCDeVoe 13h ago

He also harps on what’s “reasonable” and only the facts presented 

I was on jury duty once where jurors where talking about very unreasonable doubt, and “what-ifs” that weren’t part of the defense or evidence 

459

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 13h ago

I was on one where a woman said “I know the evidence says not guilty, but I believe he’s guilty.”

194

u/Grizzly_Berry 12h ago

I was on one (civil case, person v county) and there was a mix of "I think he deserves the money because the county can spare it," "I have done business with the county and they were a pain in the ass, so they should pay up," and "I will switch my verdict if it means I get to go home."

218

u/GirlNextor123 12h ago

This. I was so excited to serve on a jury, and when we finally got to deliberations I was stunned by the dumb and completely irrelevant arguments that fellow jurors were making.

218

u/thakemist 11h ago

This is the issue with a jury of your peers. Most of our peers are idiots

94

u/StockQuahog 10h ago

Same problem voting

3

u/Freakn_Deadpool 5h ago

Once again, lack of resources in public education shows it’s true colors. Wish we cared about it as much as COMMUNIST China does

2

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin was referring to voters as well as jurors.

1

u/siccoblue 8h ago

They are literally voting on a verdict my dude

7

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

He's talking about regular old (political) voting, not jurors voting on a verdict.

1

u/LowlySysadmin 7h ago

One affects a small number of people (often one!), the other affects all of us

33

u/Torgud_ 10h ago

The median American can't even read at a 12th grade level. They're barely literate morons.

2

u/sumptin_wierd 6h ago

yeah but we got one over on the commies or something amiright

10

u/MortgageRegular2509 9h ago

Three scariest words in the English language are “trial by jury”

2

u/diggitydonegone 5h ago

Most high functioning people have jobs that often disqualify them from making it through voir dire. And many more people move heaven and earth not to be selected. So, often a jury of our peers is not a good cross section of society.

Depending on the type of charge against me, I would potentially choose a no jury trial.

1

u/Lobenz 5h ago

George Carlin said it best.

1

u/matango613 1h ago

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

1

u/Ordinary-Egg-56 8h ago

the fix is simple but of course it will never happen because conservatives won’t let it.

unemployed people can be excused from jury service or paid a fair and reasonable amount for their time (so absolutely not min wage). employed people are protected from losing their job for serving on jury either during or after, their employer continues to pay them during that time and absolutely nothing changes (benefits or otherwise).

next we start celebrating jurors and thanking them for the service they provide. maybe some actual perks or rewards (jurors discount?), public info campaign reminding people it’s their duty in a democracy and people should be willing happy and proud to serve. we’ve all been judged fairly or unfairly in those same courtrooms (or elsewhere) in our lives. don’t we want to return the favor (or correct the mistake by serving impartiality following instruction and considering all the facts).

or a diversity campaign! we can’t have one homogenous group of jurors deciding everybody’s fate. if you’re a minority or literally a whatever job/hobby/interest wouldn’t you want one of your peers on your jury deciding your fate !? then go down and take your turn doing that for someone in your community so someone else does the same for you.

hm i think i would make an excellent politician besides all the winning elections stuff.

→ More replies (2)

48

u/RRZ006 11h ago

The average person isn’t very bright or well read/educated and I have to assume juries skew downwards to some degree.

15

u/The_Void_calls_me 10h ago

I mean there's a whole joke in that regard that juries are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Placesbetween86 10h ago

I hate to break it to you, but they actually don't. Juries are typically older and have higher income and education than the average American. Childcare is frequently claimed as a hardship that keeps people from serving. People whose kids are already adults but still healthy enough not to have a lot of health issues (40-60 range) are the most represented in our juries.

27

u/mantis_tobaggan-md 11h ago

A jury of our “peers” in America is a fucking scary thought.

25

u/slptodrm 11h ago

it pains me that this is supposedly the best system we can come up with, and we put innocent peoples' lives at their whim.

16

u/haskell_rules 10h ago

The good news is that we have studied psychological manipulation of the weak-minded so thoroughly that if you spend enough money on a talented lawyer you can convince a below average intelligence person of almost anything.

10

u/Dustin- 9h ago

You might even convince people that it's only weak-minded, below average intelligence people that can be convinced of almost anything instead of even quite intelligent people.

2

u/BeakyDoctor 11h ago

There are definitely better systems out there, the US just won’t switch to them.

At least jury nullification has been used to good effect the past couple of years

3

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

What is juror nullification, exactly? Sorry – legal dunce here. I come here to learn.

6

u/Stewart_Games 10h ago

You can rule not guilty if you perceive the law itself to be unfair. So like a flock camera vandalism case where even if it was technically destruction of property, the property itself violates personal freedom and privacy so you can rule "not guilty" as a way to argue against the legality of surveillance.

2

u/Supercoolguy7 4h ago

Or like you think a white guy did in fact beat up a black guy, but you don't like black guys so you vote not guilty

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BeakyDoctor 5h ago

Basically a juror’s ability to rule not guilty at any point, regardless of the facts of the case. It is usually used in cases where the law is perceived as unfair, or the prosecution is seen as malicious.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/burlycabin 10h ago

The only time I got to serve on a jury, it was actually a really good experience. It was a civil disobedience case and everyone on the jury took it very seriously and we all got along great. I'm sorry your experience was different.

5

u/Eric_Senpai 9h ago

The jury I served in Massachusetts was ALL white people with bachelor's, masters, and phds. I was a college student, was really hoping they'd take me out if the pool for being Asian but I guess I was the wildcard. It was a lot of smart deliberation about facts pertaining to the alleged crime and evidence.

3

u/bkgn 7h ago

I was on a jury for a clear-cut case of stranger rape, and the old women on the jury were blaming the victim for being raped in her sleep by a complete stranger. Trying to say she led the rapist on somehow. Thankfully them being so dumb also made them fairly easy to persuade.

4

u/Practical-Positive34 11h ago

Yeah reality smacks you in the face real quick sometimes huh? I always make up weird ass medical reasons to get out of that selection process. No fucking thanks!

6

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

bro we need you on the jury lmao

3

u/Beaglescout15 7h ago

Yeah when I was put into the courtroom for jury questions I thought about how I could get out of it, but then I thought that as a reasonably intelligent person, I would want me on my jury.

2

u/Working-Glass6136 8h ago

I had the same exact experience. Served once, and I was excited to be educated (not to mention I was working minimum wage, so I wasn't missing much). All to realize that one person can basically control the whole thing and everyone else just wants to go home.

23

u/Thewal 12h ago

I'm pretty sure that last one ends up being the solution to most hung juries.

32

u/FishfortheElectorate 11h ago

The last jury I was on had nine people saying guilty and three saying not guilty. After all the back and forths about the evidence, it seemed like we weren’t going to come to a decision.

Then one of the people who was saying guilty basically said that he was never changing his mind, and then two more said the same.

Then one of the not guilty voters said he didn’t feel strongly enough to keep everyone there all night and changed his vote to guilty. The two remaining not guilty votes immediately followed suit, and we were out of there within about twenty minutes.

74

u/Ok-Selection2208 11h ago

That seems like a failure of the justice system. People who will decide the fate of someone’s life based on whether they want to go home early are lazy and don’t deserve to be a part of society.

19

u/Marcus_Aurelius71 11h ago

I think a big improvement would be to allow for hung juries. Basically unanimity is needed for the guilty verdict, if there is a hung jury then its acquittal. Makes sense from the perspective you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't be proven guilty, then by the eyes of the law you are still innocent.

14

u/TerribleBudget 8h ago

Have you met some of the jurors? Some people get off on the idea that they can hold power over 11 other people just by saying something contrary.

7

u/Substantial_Dish_887 9h ago

so you only need to convince 1 person on a jury to be innocent but the entire jury for guilty?

and you don't see problem with that idea?

then again jury trials in general just seem like a bad idea when you begin to actually disect them.

2

u/PerformanceOver8822 6h ago

Well you are innocent until proven guilt.

All 12 should start with " this person is innocent" in their heads.

4

u/RealisticQuality7296 8h ago

No one should have to convince anyone on a jury of a defendant’s innocence. Seems pretty obvious that if a prosecutor can’t convince 12 people that the defendant is guilty then there’s clearly reasonable doubt.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

As much as I emotionally hate this idea.. you are 100% correct.

3

u/GetInTheKitchen1 11h ago

not true, that's really the failure of the society that produces those corrupt people. I think it is almost impossible to design a fair justice system that takes corrupt people into account. Who will watch the watchmen? You can't do much with corrupt people like that, life is fucked like that.

1

u/FishfortheElectorate 9h ago

Yeah, it was a small potatoes case, but we had been at it all day at that point. When it happened, I was surprised that the not guilty voters changed so quickly. Once the first one said he didn’t feel that strongly about it, the other two switched immediately.

1

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

One thing that makes jury duty an issue, is that you don't get paid. There should be a legal requirement to be paid by your employer if you work full time, or by the state.

People shouldn't have the thought, "I need to get out of here and get back to work to pay my bills" while their only focus should be on the trial and verdict.

2

u/Prior_Pickle1758 11h ago

which one was you

1

u/Salt-Lingonberry-853 7h ago

That's absolutely despicable. "I'm bored here so I'm gonna destroy this person's life."

3

u/Automatic-Cut-5567 8h ago

It's crazy reading yalls stories. I was on jury duty for a case of self-defense. Lady shot her BF a couple hours after he beat her black n blue(not the first time). Despite a bunch of people getting booted for bias, all of us that got picked went 'not guilty' without much debate. There was even one chick who had that karen-y works for your HOA vibe, and she agreed too.

1

u/NoThanksGoodSir 49m ago

Those kind of arguments should get people in serious legal trouble because they fundamentally taint the justice system. Of course the last one is something people will just not say aloud, but at least that makes it harder to get multiple people to switch off that mindset because they can't essentially collude.

79

u/VibeComplex 12h ago

What do you do in that situation if it affects the judgement? Tell the judge?

177

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 12h ago

We spoke to the judge, who very concisely explained all that mattered was evidence, after that and a few hours of convincing we got her to change her mind.

98

u/Zombatico 12h ago

Jesus christ. She already admitted "the evidence says not quilty" and it took HOURS to convince her to change her vote.

Some people fundamentally do not give a shit about reality or facts or truth. It's all feels and beliefs for them. Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.

8

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

Another reason out of many why we should well paid and well educated (trained in law) professional juries selected from a wide variety of races, nationalities, class backgrounds, ages, etc with an even amount of men and women.

22

u/Dramatic-Tackle5159 11h ago

Oh yeah, professional juries.

No way that could possibly end poorly lmao

1

u/Egad86 9h ago

Not to mention narrowing the juror pool so drastically would mean cases would take decades to get into court.

3

u/TheNatural14063 11h ago

The OJ Simpson jury rushed their decision because they were tired of being there and wanted to get back to their regular lives. Many people think justice wasn't fairly delivered in that case because of jurors rushing the decision in deliberation and wanting to go home.

As it stands now, jury duty is a huge inconvenience for many Americans. The average American lives paycheck to paycheck and wealth inequality is on the rise. If I missed a couple paychecks like many Americans, issues would happen. You also have issues where you get people on juries who don't want to be there not due to financial reasons but due to other reasons who sabotage the process. And then sometimes, you get really dumb people on juries who shouldn't be deciding cases

Professional juries well paid and well trained mitigates this issue.

9

u/c-dy 10h ago edited 10h ago

Your idea is missing the point of the system. Either you use juries composed of any citizen  or you don't.

Otherwise, just fix the compesation and labor protections. The whole framework doesn't need to be organized as it is now.

3

u/Reagalan 8h ago

I'm reminded of a case in Wales during the Satanic Panic where the accused was alleged to have had this whole basement full of kids' corpses and was raping them and drinking blood and all these outlandish things. Zero evidence. Case went on for months, prosecutor built an insanely elaborate narrative to explain why there was, again, zero evidence.

Jury ended up convicting just to get out of there. The defendant (the true victim here) spent 20 years in jail as a convicted pedophile and had to register as an SO for life.

All to say, I agree with you.

2

u/AdminsFluffCucks 11h ago

Prosecutors would never allow for that.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/WriterV 10h ago

Magical religious faith-based type of thinking.

Don't even need any of that. Even atheists can make decisions based on vibes. Rationality requires thinking outside of your impulsive emotions. That gut feeling can be right sometimes, but not always.

2

u/chinstrap 10h ago

Yes, but this idea that "that's what I believe" is irrefutable seems to me like it comes out of religious faith.

1

u/WriterV 9h ago

Sure, but the basis is the same.

Point is, I think we should be more wary of that being an issue among people in general. It's important to not react impulsively to matters of judgement like this, regardless of what the situation is or what drives your emotional reactions.

→ More replies (3)

56

u/PrussiaK89 12h ago

Is your name Juror #8?

29

u/AriaTheTransgressor 11h ago

That's such a Juror #3 thing to say.

6

u/Varron 11h ago

Woah Juror #2, not cool at all

1

u/PuckSenior 6h ago

Should have gone with calling him #10. #2 doesn’t really make sense

1

u/Varron 6h ago

Such a #7 thing to say

→ More replies (0)

5

u/ScreamingVoid14 11h ago

If #12 would stop chewing gum so loudly, maybe we could focus on getting out of this room.

1

u/PrussiaK89 19m ago

This comment weirdly sent me into a 20 minute moment of introspection as to who people see me as in public. Thank you.

3

u/lahimatoa 11h ago

Jesus fuck some people are very stupid.

1

u/rbobby 12h ago

And this judge specifically said "to a moral certainty" and defined it. That juror's 'I just know it' doesn't survive that test.

I've heard these sorts of instructions to juries a couple of times and this one seems on par. And the judge did not seemed put out at all by this... an honest attempt to help the jury do its job.

1

u/Itwao 10h ago

Heard from a family members experience. There was one juror who, at the start, was so absolutely convinced the guy was guilty. Day one, zero evidence, guilty.

As the days went on, and more evidence made it clear the guy was guilty (including VIDEO OF HIM DOING IT), suddenly this guy flips to innocent. Absolutely refused to participate in deliberation. Basically just crossed his arms and kept saying "Nope. He's innocent. I don't care what the video showed, he's innocent."

Took them two entire days. They talked to the judge and all he said was to deliberate further. The guy ended up switching back to guilty, but not because he was convinced. He was tired of everybody else yelling at him and was very upset that he was forced to agree.

People are stupid when it comes to jury duty.

32

u/TehSeksyManz 12h ago

Could someone have gotten her kicked off of the jury somehow? Clearly she wasn't a reasonable person. 

37

u/Not-your-lawyer- 12h ago edited 12h ago

Yes.

Jurors can weight the evidence however they please [[e.g., "I think all fifteen eyewitnesses are lying, but the defendant seemed believable"]], but when they're sworn in they agree to faithfully apply that evidence to the instructions provided by the judge. They can be removed if the judge finds out they're not.

BUT the judge can only find out if other jurors report them. And even then the first remedy is just warning the person and admonishing them to follow the rules. If they keep it up, they get removed.

If no one reports anything, you get a hung jury.

If all the jurors end up agreeing with them, you get a conviction or an acquittal.

19

u/bonecheck12 12h ago

It depends on what they say as well. The other jurors can't just report to the judge "they're being unreasonable" and then the judge kicks them out. They have to say something like "he's guilty because he's black" or something crazy like that. Otherwise you'd have judges kicking out all sorts of jurors just based on the fact that it's 8-1 in the jury votes and nobody wants that.

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

Hence the judge in the Clancy trial refusing the defense's request to dismiss that one juror.

9

u/panhellenic 10h ago

if you've ever served on a jury, then you know the system gives them the utmost deferential treatment. I think a lot of people are intimidated by a judge and so don't want to speak up when things get hinky in the jury room. The judge really does want fairness (obvy there are some exceptions) and they *really* don't want a case overturned bc of some juror behavior they didn't know about at the time but could have nipped it in the bud had they known.

I've been in the position of having to tell the judge about something a juror did, and I spoke to her clerk, not the judge herself, so no black robe anxiety. She thanked me and said the judge really did need to know about the behavior (which ended up causing a mistrial).

7

u/hodorhodor12 11h ago

I know there's no perfect system, but a system that allows for blatant such stupidity to land someone in prison for life can't be the best system.

2

u/SaltMage5864 11h ago

I was on one where a couple of people said he must be guilty because nobody is that stupid. Not a claim anyone could make today

2

u/YouGlittering9156 5h ago

That's insane...

I think the important thing he harps on is "I've told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until they are proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor..."

Just like in your situation, the woman needed to listen to that advice.

1

u/ExtremelyOkay8980 12h ago

Infuriating 🤦🏻‍♀️

1

u/datagamma 12h ago

Ha. The definition of unreasonable

1

u/ILikeBeans86 12h ago

The ol Ronald Reagan defense

1

u/recycledcup 10h ago

I was on a jury and two people didn’t want to find the defendant guilty because they didn’t want to separate a parent from their children.

It was very open close case, it took hours to get these two to finally agree to a guilty verdict. The judge came to us afterwards and was like, “what took so long? This should have been quick.”

Turns out, we were not informed this as it could have skewed our opinions, the defendant was wanted for other charges related to drug trafficking and they needed him to stay in town. The offense in which I was a juror for involved him fleeing the area.

1

u/Still-Anything5678 9h ago

the Ronald Reagan approach

1

u/sansasnarkk 9h ago

I remember watching the staircase documentary and the defense was testing how the general public would react to THE preeminent blood splatter expert give testimony supporting the defendants innocence and they all were like "idk I can barely understand him." He was speaking plain English with a Chinese accent. Some were just blatantly racist.

Like, I'm sorry, I understand why we do it the way we do but I have no interest in being judged by the general public. They're morons.

1

u/KingBooRadley 8h ago

Let me guess what color she was, and what color he was . . .

1

u/HorrorGrapefruit9389 8h ago

Both white.

1

u/KingBooRadley 7h ago

I'm shocked.

1

u/TeaInASkullMug 4h ago

the kind of people you want when you catch false allegations.

182

u/Equivalent_One5900 13h ago edited 12h ago

I’ve been a juror for a murder trial and had the same shit going on in the jury room where people were coming up with theories and im like look our job is not to prosecute or defend we are here to hear the facts given—if the prosecution didn’t do a good job of that that’s not our fault. We shouldn’t have to piece it together ourselves.

24

u/strychnineman 10h ago

Exactly this.

The jury doesn’t decide if they think someone is guilty. They determine if the prosecution proved they were.

It’s maddening to try to explain this to people who say “but I think…”. Nope. You don’t get to fill in gaps and guess. The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

4

u/GrassyNoob 9h ago

The question is: Did. The. State. Prove. Their. Case.

"But I think the law is wrong." Trumps that sentence.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Lepelotonfromager 4h ago

Although I'd argue the opposite is partially true, if you feel as the jury the defense did a poor job of making their arguments and presenting the evidence and you genuinely feel like there might be some innocence you should be willing to posit some theoriest the defence didn't. Ultimately the jury are the last line of ensuring justice and also preventing injustice.

There are some cases where it seems like the judge, prosecutor and defense just don't give a shit and people get railroaded because they've got a backlog of cases.

1

u/ApprehensiveLand848 9h ago

but if someone is gonna die or go to jail for life over it and something dont make sense it hard to remain that objective and not think about things

that how people are

3

u/Equivalent_One5900 8h ago

Also think about if you were a defendant. Would you feel it is fair that people have personal feelings that they are bringing into the deliberation?

I remember the district attorney making the analogy that if enough puzzle pieces are in place can you tell what the jigsaw puzzle is. But if the pieces are there, but flipped over, in the wrong spot, completely missing, not attach to neighboring pieces, it could be hard to piece together the picture. You may know what the picture maybe about but you are not sure. This is what happened in the jury trial I was a juror for. There was evidence but the evidence did not show a story clearly.

As an objective story it’s not my duty to fill in the blanks. That would be unfair for me as a juror to create my own theory. The state had a theory to argue and if it did not make sense that is not the jury’s fault.

2

u/Equivalent_One5900 8h ago

There’s nothing wrong about having subjective feelings but as a juror it is your civic duty to be objective. Voir dire weeds out the possible bias that we all have we are human and ultimately an objective jury should be seated

→ More replies (10)

17

u/nyglthrnbrry 12h ago

I always thought jury duty could be annoying, but you'r comment made me realize it could easily be my own personal hell

2

u/a_piginacage 12h ago

Was for me. Very eye opening though.

1

u/TRVTH-HVRTS 5h ago

Jury deliberation is final boss level of Group Projects

41

u/Rockergage 13h ago

Fuck I did a mock jury about eminent domain acquisition final evaluation and we were trying to determine, “how much should this group get for their land.” I had one woman who said, “what about the mineral rights- (long uninteresting spiel about friend getting screwed about it)” and I had to restrain myself and try to be nice when I explained “if there was valuable minerals under this shitty church it still wouldn’t matter because the land isn’t zoned industrial mining.” Which was never brought up and shouldn’t be considered.

5

u/man_eating_mt_rat 11h ago

But jurors can have a moral objection to the law itself and vote based on that. But our so called justice system isn't real loud about that.

1

u/endless_shrimp 8h ago

Zoning can change though?

1

u/Rockergage 7h ago

It could but it’s not and won’t. For one because it’s near a lot of pedestrian houses, two because they are old need to destroy and redevelop the whole land, and three because there isn’t any minerals worth a damn underneath it because you don’t randomly find valuable minerals and resources hidden underneath a mega church that has existed for decades suddenly.

The issue was she created an imaginary issue that was not relevant to the case at hand that nobody brought up. I’m not interested in rehashing the entire lawsuit but for a case like this it was the church thought they should get X and the transit authority thought they get Y. Church incorrectly asserted they should get more because they believed they deserved to have it fully replaced with a new building rather than what eminent domain is which is what the property is worth.

98

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

I was on a jury once where some of the jurors ignored the fact that the defendant was guilty based purely on their own testimony during the trial. But because they didn't trust the evidence of the victims, they refused to find them guilty.

Mind boggling.

43

u/Coolgrnmen 12h ago

It’s better to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person.

63

u/el-mago2 13h ago

Have you never heard of faulty self incrimination? There are loads of cases of people admitting to crimes they didnt commit. Admission of guilt cannot be used alone as evidence of a crime

21

u/jonniezombie 13h ago

He is saying the opposite of that. The jury believed the person on trial, when they gave witness testimony that they didn’t do it. They believed this more than the evidence against them.

9

u/gh0stwriter1234 12h ago

Depends on what the evidence is... if its merely circumstantial evidence that might not be enough. Because it comes down their word vs the other person's.

I know someone that nullified a drug charges case, because they could not prove the person had put them shrooms in their backpack themselves and it wasn't just stashed there during a party by someone else.

There was no video of them putting the shrooms in there or having them in their possession only they were found in their backpack which was not with them at the time. Basically there was not 100% certainty that they put them there.

36

u/Odd_Ninja5801 13h ago

Can't really go into details too much. Suffice to say, one of the victims said they did x and y, and the defendant basically admitted that they did x and y. There was physical evidence to support it as well. Only x and y was needed for a conviction, but there was also evidence they did a, b, c, d and e as well. They didn't admit to any of the rest.

Jurors ignored that x and y was enough to convict, because they didn't believe the victims about a, b, c, d and e.

2

u/UncleBlanc 12h ago

What was the outcome? Did you follow or did they switch?

→ More replies (7)

6

u/triangle60 13h ago

Please tell me where in the rules of evidence or under what case it says that a person's testimony by itself can't be used alone as evidence of a crime.

15

u/grap112ler 12h ago

When the testimony is made under duress or torture. Also if that person is clinically insane or developmentally disabled, etc etc.

2

u/Loud-Competition6995 12h ago

You forget the third equally likely option, the defendant is an idiot and misunderstands that their actions don’t actually meet the definition of the crime they’re accused of.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Immediate_Gain_9480 11h ago edited 11h ago

Unus testis, nullus testis. Its a rather old legal rule from roman law that i think is abolished in most of the US if it ever applied. But is still used in a few countries. I think thats were the confusion is from.

4

u/Legal-Literature-696 12h ago

It’s called prima facia evidence. In order to go forward with a charge against a defendant there must be prima facia evidence that the defendant committed the crime without the defendant’s admissions used to establish that fact. This is a motion brought before trial commences. NYL and not giving legal advice.

2

u/piscina_de_la_muerte 12h ago

To add on to this, as an example, consider if someone walks into a police station and admits to killing John Doe. Without police establishing that John Doe exists, and is in fact dead, how could you charge the person who confessed to the "killing".

0

u/OldBrownShoe22 12h ago

A proper admission to all elements of a crime is prima facie evidence of the crime though.

3

u/VaATC 12h ago

Then they just need to collect the physical evidence to ground the case in the physical realm.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/sundalius 12h ago

Well yeah. That’s the point of juries. To determine credibility and weigh evidence to determine what the facts will be.

1

u/legal_stylist 10h ago

That’s entirely legitimate, though. A juror is entitled to believe some, none or all of anyone’s testimony, or any combination thereof. A juror is perfectly entitled to credit the testimony of the defendant over any number of purported victims’ testimony, or anyone else’s for that matter. A juror is even entitled to disbelieve all the testimony given, and base their determination on the rest of the evidence
Weighing the credibility of conflicting testimony is the heart of what the trier pf fact (ie, the jury) is charged to do.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/datagamma 12h ago

Frustrating. People are severely under education or aware of reason. The world must be a truly baffling place to these people. No wonder conspiracy theories abound.

We all use heuristics and bias or prejudice in our day to day. It’s shocking though when I see people being reasoned with who will not budge from unreasonable positions without a second thought and willful ignorance of data and evidence. Feelings and authority are far more compelling to people unfamiliar with critical thinking and rational argument.

Being stubborn and unreasonable used to be negative personality traits. The most belligerent of us have convinced themselves they are virtues.

3

u/Big-Constant-7289 11h ago

Ugh I was a juror on an alleged drunk driving trial and one of the jurors had a kid who just got their license and she would not let it go.  OH BUT IF MY BABY WAS ON THE ROAD? NO I KNOW BUT WHAT IF…. jfc we were all so mad at her. 

3

u/rand0m_task 11h ago

I was on the grand jury and people were thinking we were sending these people straight to jail and not to trial.

It was awful.

I rather be judged by the judge than a jury of my peers after that experience.

5

u/BleachedUnicornBHole 12h ago

I’m kind of wondering if one of the jurors went down a TikTok rabbit hole of conspiracies for this trial.

2

u/Gryzzlee 10h ago

It's weird that in this case the prosecution has to prove someone was sane and not the other way around with the defense proving they were insane.

Hard to prove something that none of her providers thought she was suffering from. And she refused to be an inpatient/outpatient to help specialists confirm if she did or didn't.

Why does the prosecution need to prove sanity in this case? It's weird as heck.

1

u/OrangeBird077 12h ago

Ultimately isn’t it up to the jurors whether or not they want to vote guilty or not guilty though?

Ethically of course people should vote according to the law, but there’s really nothing stopping someone from voting however they want regardless of what a judge says. The judge can’t put them in prison or order retaliation?

3

u/friend_jp 11h ago

Though probably rare against a juror, Contempt of Court is a thing.

1

u/WArslz 12h ago

I’m surprised it isn’t more common honestly. Especially now with the rise in interest of true crime and conspiracy theories

1

u/EyeSuccessful7649 12h ago

and the cause of her insanity of over with, so.

1

u/asher1611 9h ago

As a defense attorney it is always fascinating to me what theories jurors latch on to. Oftentimes it is stuff that me, the prosecutor, and the judge know doesn't matter under the law.

1

u/wibo58 8h ago

I think this is a scenario people aren’t thinking about. Could it be one hold out that thinks she’s guilty? Sure. But there’s also a possibility that 11 think she’s guilty and there’s one wackadoodle that keeps coming up with what if scenarios to justify a not guilty.

1

u/ToastyBB 8h ago

Sounds like 98% of the conversation surrounding this case on social media

1

u/richardcraniumIII 7h ago

I really lucked out when I was 20 years old and was a juror on a criminal case. Twelve people of different ages, sex, and races. Criminal case against a defendant that "shot at the cops". Long story short - all of us agreed that the police were lying. The evidence was clear in that regard. We got trashed in the media for our decision. We talked and talked and talked to get to our decision. There was one hold out but we were able to talk it out. This was in the 90s, though. Before social media.

1

u/Inevitable-Level-687 3h ago

I was lucky when I was on a jury i guess. Some absolute morons and assholes but whenever someone reminded them of reasonable doubt, or that we had to judge each count on its own merit, they listened.

→ More replies (5)

169

u/kakashi_sensay 14h ago

That’s what it’s looking like.

62

u/Fun-Distribution4776 13h ago

I would not read tea leaves here. He has to remind jurors who has the burden

30

u/JackTwoGuns 13h ago

It’s the defense that’s pushing to kick out the juror so it definitely feels like it’s 11-1 not guilty

47

u/Fun-Distribution4776 13h ago

The defense is is making a show and motions to preserve appeal issues. No one knows which side the 11-1 split is on

7

u/MilesFromTeg 11h ago

Sure but the show part is completely unnecessary for an appeal. While the defense may not know how the 11-1 are split, he must feel very strongly it is 11 to 1 positive to the defense goals. If he felt the holdout was the one in his favor, it is incredibly risky to take that person off. In that instance, a mistrial is a great outcome for the defense; and he would have asked for a mistrial to preserve that appellate issue.

3

u/Fun-Distribution4776 10h ago

He knows the judge isn’t going to take the person off; no judge is going to do that without clear evidence that the juror is engaged in improper behavior.

The show part is to make a show to the judge, and to then public. He knows if there’s a mistrial then there can be a future trial: it’s good for the defendant to shape public opinion. And it’s worked: everyone thinks the jury is on the cusp of a NG verdict, when in fact we have no idea

2

u/MilesFromTeg 6h ago

He didnt ask for a mistrial. If he thought there was any reasonable chance it was 11-1 guilty, he would have 100p done so

1

u/hesh582 9h ago

The defense probably has a pretty good idea though.

Things can't go on this long without some real hints coming through based on what the judge chooses to say or not say, what questions are asked, etc.

3

u/Fun-Distribution4776 8h ago

You can try to draw ideas from jury questions, but it’s really unreliable. The judge’s statement is very much standard, and so I wouldn’t read anything into it.

I’m a lawyer and have done quite a few jury trials. You really have very little idea which way a jury is leaning based on jury questions or difficulty to reach a verdict (aside from the fact that there is disagreement within the jury). I’ve learned just to shrug my shoulders and wait when these things happen.

It very well may end up that it’s 11-1 in favor of NG. But it may very well be that’s is 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict. My guess is that this will end in mistrial in a day or two, and then we will find out.

3

u/hesh582 8h ago

This is of course all true... but this is a very unusual situation with a very unusual amount of communication between the judge/parties/jury.

22

u/RelationshipShort460 13h ago

it could be 11-1 for murder 2, or 11-1 for manslaughter instead of murder 1. there are a lot of possibilities here, beyond not guilty.

3

u/BoleroMuyPicante 9h ago

That's so much of why there's a deadlock, there's five different verdicts to choose from and you have to get 12 to agree on one.

2

u/RedYellowHoney 10h ago

Yes. And the defense lawyer making the statement that he kicked the prosecution's ass. He's quite the character.

4

u/lahimatoa 11h ago

It's weird to me people aren't saying the full thing: "not guilty by reason of insanity".

Not simply "not guilty". She did it, we know.

2

u/DynamicImpulses 8h ago

To be fair, “Not Guilty” (that is, full acquittal) is a verdict option for the jury here, notwithstanding the fact that neither side disputes she did it. That said, it’s highly unlikely that 11 jurors would go full social media rabbit hole. Much more likely it’s the “Not Guilty by Lack of Criminal Responsibility”.

2

u/Gloomy_Fig2138 9h ago

It’s because both TikTok astrology weirdos and manosphere weirdos are heavily invested in this case. The TikTok astrology weirdos are somehow convinced that her husband did it and is framing her, and the manosphere weirdos are convinced that she’s faking her entire mental health history and planned this all as a long con.

3

u/Different_Bridge_983 10h ago

Right.

Hypothetically if he a judge believes the defendant is guilty the absolute last thing they’d want to do is even vaguely appear to be steering a jury towards a conviction on anything remotely less than a standard of reasonable doubt, because that’s gonna go straight to an appeal.

2

u/AutisticPenguin2 12h ago

I would kind of hope the judge had basically a default statement that he could read out that wasn't clearly pushing the jurors one way or the other. There's a reason he is not part of the jury.

1

u/jasondigitized 10h ago

NYTimes just reported its one hold out so there's that.

3

u/Fun-Distribution4776 10h ago

It is one hold out. But we don’t know where they’re at

6

u/Defiant-Power2447 12h ago

lol - the judge literally read model instructions.

1

u/SkepticalOfOthers 10h ago

People in /r/law actually think the judge is just making up his own instructions based on the circumstances and/or his own opinion.

2

u/Dull_Bid6002 11h ago

I don't think it's a signal either way. I can imagine someone who decided guilty while the rest are not-guilty by reason of insanity. I can also imagine someone saying not guilty but deciding she just didn't do it because there could have been all these other things that happened.

1

u/Tufflaw 10h ago

He's not harping on anything, he's reading the legal definition of reasonable doubt which is a standard part of the jury instructions. He would have already read it to them at the end of the trial.

1

u/philthebrewer 8h ago

All sounds like pretty standard jury instructions to me 🤷‍♂️

1

u/smilysmilysmooch 7h ago

The "reason of insanity" I think is the major issue. Normally, you have to prove beyond a reason of doubt whether she committed the crime. Well she did it. There's nothing to debate there. Now a juror has to prove beyond a reason of doubt if why she did it disqualifies her from prison which isn't the same thing and honestly a lot more complicated of a thing to deliberate on.

If you think she did it and was sane, she's guilty. If you think she did it and was insane then she's not guilty. That's a weird thing for this juror to grasp that they are only supposed to focus on motivation instead of whether or not the person committed the crime.

1

u/code_archeologist 6h ago

Or that juror has a bet on Kalshi for the duration of the jury deliberation.

1

u/Don_Ford 6h ago

I think it could be not guilty completely.

1

u/toucheboo 5h ago

Guilty is the only verdict. Wtf is wrong with you guys. 

1

u/opinionsarefarts 10h ago

isn't everyone insane who murders

3

u/DynamicImpulses 8h ago

Legally speaking? No.

1

u/Own_Huckleberry6591 6h ago

Shes not crazy. She's sitting there perfectly normal. She had no issues prior to this event. This is actually ridiculous that this is even an argument.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (86)